Oneto v. Watson

Background

Roy Oneto filed a state-court action against Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, Cigna Health Management Inc., Melvin Watson, M.D., and fictitious defendants. The complaint asserted claims against insurance providers for allegedly failing to cover a medical operation. Watson removed the case to federal court on September 12, 2022. Oneto moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Oneto did not challenge federal diversity jurisdiction. The opinion states that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, that Oneto was a California citizen, that Watson was a Georgia citizen, that Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. was a Texas citizen, and that the other two Cigna entities were citizens of Connecticut.

Reasons for Denying Remand

First, Oneto argued that the complaint did not support diversity jurisdiction because it did not state Watson’s domicile. The court rejected that argument. It held that a defendant may investigate information outside the complaint to confirm that diversity jurisdiction exists, so long as the applicable deadlines for removal are met. The absence of Watson’s domicile from the complaint therefore did not make removal improper.

Second, the parties disputed when Watson was served and whether his removal was timely. The court found that sending the amended complaint to the attorney representing the Cigna entities did not serve Watson because that attorney had not confirmed that he represented Watson at the time. But the court also held that Watson effectively waived any separate service requirement by appearing in the state-court case and filing an answer on September 8, 2022. Because he removed the case four days later, the removal was timely.

Third, Oneto argued that Watson’s removal filing was defective because it did not include the correct summons and the amended complaints. The court agreed that Watson had not attached all required documents and had attached the wrong summons. It nevertheless held that these defects did not require remand because they could be corrected.

Disposition

The court denied Oneto’s motion to remand. It ordered Watson to file the correct documents within ten days of the order’s issuance. The court stated that the case would be remanded to state court if Watson failed to do so.